Homer Thompson Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 I don't see it as a red card whether he's shooting or not. Fact is there is a defender in the way apart from the one who fouled him as well as the goalkeeper. No matter what interpretation kirkyblue would like to put on the rules no referee would send a player off in those circumstances and in the unlikely event one did the player would win any appeal on that footage. There is no "last man rule" although it's commonly referred to as that. However, it's a well established fact that if there is another opponent who could be interpreted as between player and goal when a foul is committed then it's not a sending off. There's no way on earth that foul on Saturday was a red card under current guidance. You are of course free to think that current guidance is a nonsense if you like but that doesn't mean Bobby Madden made an error on Saturday. He got it spot on. Surely, though, the defender needs to be in a position to affect play? If the defender in this example had been on the 6 yard line (unlikely I know) or 10 yards wider he would still have been between Conroy and the goal. He wouldnt, though, have been able to stop Conroy shooting, even with an extra touch. If Conroy is about to shoot then he was denied a goal scoring opportunity, if he was trying to run into the box then the defender becomes relevant. I agree. Although, he would have to be very obviously about to shoot for any ref to even consider sending the player off. If Conroy was about to shoot the other defender is 10 yards away and to the side of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 I don't see it as a red card whether he's shooting or not. Fact is there is a defender in the way apart from the one who fouled him as well as the goalkeeper. No matter what interpretation kirkyblue would like to put on the rules no referee would send a player off in those circumstances and in the unlikely event one did the player would win any appeal on that footage. There is no "last man rule" although it's commonly referred to as that. However, it's a well established fact that if there is another opponent who could be interpreted as between player and goal when a foul is committed then it's not a sending off. There's no way on earth that foul on Saturday was a red card under current guidance. You are of course free to think that current guidance is a nonsense if you like but that doesn't mean Bobby Madden made an error on Saturday. He got it spot on. How many opponents were between Conroy and the goal when he scored?If that had been in open play and all the Stranraer defenders were exactly where they were, bar one who pushed Conroy from behind as he was about to shoot, he would have prevented a clear goal scoring opportunity because Conroy actually scored from there. It can't possibly be a rule that it isn't a red card if there is another opponent between the player and the goal. It depends how far away they are and what is happening at the time. If he is 10 yards away when the player is brought down as he is about to shoot, that's a red card because a clear goal scoring opportunity has been prevented. The rule isn't preventing what would have been a goal. It is preventing what would have been an opportunity to score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 How many opponents were between Conroy and the goal when he scored? If that had been in open play and all the Stranraer defenders were exactly where they were, bar one who pushed Conroy from behind as he was about to shoot, he would have prevented a clear goal scoring opportunity because Conroy actually scored from there. It can't possibly be a rule that it isn't a red card if there is another opponent between the player and the goal. It depends how far away they are and what is happening at the time. If he is 10 yards away when the player is brought down as he is about to shoot, that's a red card because a clear goal scoring opportunity has been prevented. The rule isn't preventing what would have been a goal. It is preventing what would have been an opportunity to score. Thats utter nonsense. You are implying that any situation in which a goal ends up being scored is by definition a clear goalscoring opportunity. Mark Oxley scored one from his own penalty area at Easter Road last season, does that make any foul on a goalkeeper a clear goalscoring opportunity?The facts are it isnt a red card by rule and guidance. If you and Kirky dont like it thats fine. You can campaign for a change if you like though frankly the notion of amending the rule to effectively make any foul within 30 yards of goal a red card is not one I think you will find much support for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyblue2 Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Thats utter nonsense. You are implying that any situation in which a goal ends up being scored is by definition a clear goalscoring opportunity. Mark Oxley scored one from his own penalty area at Easter Road last season, does that make any foul on a goalkeeper a clear goalscoring opportunity? The facts are it isnt a red card by rule and guidance. If you and Kirky dont like it thats fine. You can campaign for a change if you like though frankly the notion of amending the rule to effectively make any foul within 30 yards of goal a red card is not one I think you will find much support for. Where are you getting 30 yards from, he was fouled just outside the box as he was about to shoot but because one defender was nearby it wasn't a clear goal scoring opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 The fact is that while the rule isn't framed as "last man", the reason that phrase has gained an irritating foothold is that it does provide some guidance as to the clarity or otherwise of a goalscoring opportunity. If, a fair distance from goal with a defender and goalkeeper in the way, it's not generally regarded as a "clear goalscoring opportunity". Obviously, there's a subjective element to that wording , but on Saturday, the presence of the other defender was rightly decisive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyblue2 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Found this on Wikipedia, maybe SD can post the official guideline. The offence is informally known as DOGSO, an acronym for "Denying an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity".[4] An "obvious goalscoring opportunity" means that the attacker has the ball at or near his feet, is close to the goal area and is moving towards the goal, and has no more than one defender or the goalkeeper in his way. These are known by referees as the "4 Ds," and only a foul that has all four must result in a red card.[5] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Found this on Wikipedia, maybe SD can post the official guideline. The offence is informally known as DOGSO, an acronym for "Denying an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity".[4] An "obvious goalscoring opportunity" means that the attacker has the ball at or near his feet, is close to the goal area and is moving towards the goal, and has no more than one defender or the goalkeeper in his way. These are known by referees as the "4 Ds," and only a foul that has all four must result in a red card.[5] Interesting. The word used is "obvious" then, as opposed to "clear". Still though, that subjectivity exists. Is the fact it mentions "one defender OR the goalkeeper", as opposed to "AND the goalkeeper" not significant though? To me it suggests again that the ref was right on Saturday because the defender's presence was in addition to that of the goalkeeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Found this on Wikipedia, maybe SD can post the official guideline. The offence is informally known as DOGSO, an acronym for "Denying an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity".[4] An "obvious goalscoring opportunity" means that the attacker has the ball at or near his feet, is close to the goal area and is moving towards the goal, and has no more than one defender or the goalkeeper in his way. These are known by referees as the "4 Ds," and only a foul that has all four must result in a red card.[5] That quote (reference 5) is from a US Soccer website, dated 2002. ETA - this is the full piece Number of Defenders -- not more than one defender between the foul and the goal, not counting the defender who committed the foul Distance to goal -- the closer the foul is to the goal, the more likely it is an obvious goal-scoring opportunity Distance to ball -- the attacker must have been close enough to the ball at the time of the foul to have continued playing the ball Direction of play -- the attacker must have been moving toward the goal at the time the foul was committed Going by those guidelines, it should have been a red card. Unless the goalkeeper is also classed as a defender, it isnt clear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Interesting. The word used is "obvious" then, as opposed to "clear". Still though, that subjectivity exists. Is the fact it mentions "one defender OR the goalkeeper", as opposed to "AND the goalkeeper" not significant though? To me it suggests again that the ref was right on Saturday because the defender's presence was in addition to that of the goalkeeper. I also think Madden was right to issue a yellow. However, the debate, for me, is whether he was right to do so because Conroy wasnt in the act of shooting or because there was a defender in the box. I would argue its the former. If Conroy is taking a shot then its a clear, or obvious, goal scoring opportunity, despite the presence of the defender Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyblue2 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 This is the official version which is also quite vague. Denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity There are two sending-off offences that deal with denying an opponent an obvious opportunity to score a goal. It is not necessary for the offence to occur inside the penalty area. If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goalscoring opportunity and a goal is scored directly, despite the opponent’s handling the ball or fouling an opponent, the player cannot be sent off but he may still be cautioned. Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity: • the distance between the offence and the goal • the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball • the direction of the play • the location and number of defenders • the offence which denies an opponent an obvious goalscoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free kick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Well, no. If there was no defender back, it wouldnt matter whether Conroy took another touch or not, he'd still have got a clear shot away. The criteria to take into account when deciding a clear goal scoring opportunity are : The direction of the play. The location of the foul. The proximity of the player to the ball. The probability of controlling the ball. The location and number of opponents. The opportunity for the attempt on goal. You're absolutely right that the "last man" rule, so often quoted, doesnt exist but the position of the defenders is still a factor This is the official version which is also quite vague. Denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity There are two sending-off offences that deal with denying an opponent an obvious opportunity to score a goal. It is not necessary for the offence to occur inside the penalty area. If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goalscoring opportunity and a goal is scored directly, despite the opponent’s handling the ball or fouling an opponent, the player cannot be sent off but he may still be cautioned. Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity: • the distance between the offence and the goal • the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball • the direction of the play • the location and number of defenders • the offence which denies an opponent an obvious goalscoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free kick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Thats utter nonsense. You are implying that any situation in which a goal ends up being scored is by definition a clear goalscoring opportunity. Mark Oxley scored one from his own penalty area at Easter Road last season, does that make any foul on a goalkeeper a clear goalscoring opportunity? The facts are it isnt a red card by rule and guidance. If you and Kirky dont like it thats fine. You can campaign for a change if you like though frankly the notion of amending the rule to effectively make any foul within 30 yards of goal a red card is not one I think you will find much support for. No, that wasn't what I meant, which I think you know perfectly well.I was using a slightly unrealistic example to counter your claim that the guidance states if there is another defender there then there can't be a red card. Which is nonsense. Of course, please feel free to post the guidance you are referring to. The one published above says you have to take account of the distance from goal, which completely removes the possibility of your goalkeeper example. It also says you have to take account of the number and location of defenders. Number and location. Which is exactly the point I was making. Perhaps you should start a campaign to have the rule changed to what you think it is. Edited to add - I made no comment on whether it was a red card on Saturday or not. However, I'll remember next time that we get a free kick on the edge of the box, in the centre of goal that it isn't a goalscoring opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
die hard doonhamer Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 If I sent someone off for a foul like that on Conroy and was being watched I would be rightly crucified for it. Get a grip, it's never a red card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyblue2 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 I'm sorry I brought it up for discussion, thought this was a site to discuss football matters but it seems some are holding personal grudges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.